Vintage Sherbrook Rye

[cowdery]

It might be more truthful if we told people that Jack Daniel's is bourbon.

[gillmang]

Maybe this is cultural/"learned" behaviour, but I detect a greater similarity between American- and Canadian-made whiskey and malt and blended Scotch whisky than I do between either of those and brandy, say, or any rum, or Indian whisky (which I have tried). Many have noted the seeming connections (in taste) between Irish whiskey and rye whiskey, for example. True, if you blend genuine whisky and a high proof aged (or even not) fructose spirit it will still taste like whisky if not overly diluted. Is that whisky too? It depends..

But you have to start somewhere, and I would retain the current cereals-based definitions in the U.S. and Canadian codes. As for other countries, they will have to decide for themselves. In some places, whisky may simply mean any strong spirit, although it may have acquired an Anglo-American meaning too (e.g., Japan).

A strong brand name can overshadow, I think, these definitions.

Isn't Jack Daniels a good example? The word bourbon does not appear on the label even though it may well qualify to carry it. The word whiskey does appear, but I wonder, today, how significant even that is.

Gary

[EllenJ]

Isn't Jack Daniels a good example? The word bourbon does not appear on the label even though it may well qualify to carry it. The word whiskey does appear, but I wonder, today, how significant even that is.

No, Gary, Jack Daniel's, by law, is not qualified to carry the word bourbon on its label. The famous rejection letter that Reagor Motlow received in the early '40s and turned into the basis for an awesomely successful advertising campaign made that perfectly clear. And the result? Well, it sure doesn't look like not being "qualified" to use the word "bourbon" has hurt their sales any, does it? In fact, if the TTB or ATF or BAT or whatever it is this year were to suddenly decide to allow Lincoln-processed whiskey to be called "bourbon", Brown-Forman probably wouldn't feel it to be worth the cost of re-labeling.

Most JD drinkers don't think it's bourbon anyway... they think it's sour mash instead.

But JD does make a perfect illustration of how little it matters what your product is required to be (or not be) called. Would removing the word "Whiskey" from the label of, say, Old Grand Dad Straight Kentucky Bourbon cause it to lose sales?
Do you even know whether it SAYS whiskey on the front of the label? (uh huh, you had to look, didn't you?)


My point is that we ought to just LET the Scotch Whiskey Ass ociaton have their way and limit the word whisky to only the products they control.

Chuck, are the Indians upset because they think no one will buy Randipoor "Old Elephant" Special Reserve if it doesn't say Whisky on it?
Or is it just the less-principled minority who see their customers only as suckers to whom they must continue selling CalCutty Sark Whisky, with tartan plaids and bagpipes on the label?

[gillmang]

Well, apart from whether JD is bourbon (I did not understand the jury is in on that), we aren't in much disagreement. But I wouldn't refuse the use of the term whiskey to those who want to use it where current law allows the description. Yet that would result if the U.S. gave up its regulations on the standards of identity for whiskey of various kinds; I just cannot see that from happening, John.

Gary

[cowdery]

John states the facts about Daniel's more or less accurately but overstates the conclusion. Motlow asked the question in such a way as to get the answer he wanted, which was the answer he got. He didn't want to call his product bourbon and how better to avoid being forced to call it bourbon than to manipulate the Treasury Department into saying that he couldn't call it bourbon.

In other words, the premise that the Lincoln Country Process precludes a whiskey that is otherwise a bourbon from using the term is, I think, specious and would fail if properly contested.

The regs permit whatever they don't prohibit and they don't prohibit charcoal rectification prior to barrel entry.

But I certainly concede the point that not being a bourbon hasn't hurt Jack Daniel's.

And, to be clear, the SWA is not advocating that only scotch, or only scotch malt, be considered whiskey, although a great many individual Scotsman, and at least one resident of Ohio-occupied Kentucky, continue to hold that arbitrary, retrograde belief.

[gillmang]

One thing I will say for JD - it offers the consumer a single barrel, 94 proof version. I wish Old Overholt did that.

Gary